About your Search

20130323
20130323
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. >> we reignited a fundamental debate. >> scott: outside city hall, gays and lesbians lines up around the block. about 4,000 couples tied the knot. it was not to last. at the urging of then governor schwarzenegger, the supreme court stopped the marriages. over the years, it snaked its way through the judicial system. in 2008, ruling banning gay unions violated the state constitution. it cannot be denied based on it. >> so goes the rest of the nation. it's inevitable. this door's wide open now. it's going to happen. whether you like it or not. >> scott: the ruling triggered a wave of joyful weddings this time across the state. including the celebrated union of two long time lesbian activists t
of the cases, doma and prop 8 have to do with same-sex marriage. they are different. explain. >> the defense of marriage act called doma was enacted in 1996. proposition 8 is a california measure enacted in 2008. both are part of what we think as a backlash to early efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. those go back further than gavin newsom in 1993 when hawaii looked like it would legalize same-sex marriage. only when hawaii looked like it would do that, congress passed doma. the section of doma that is argued next week before the supreme court says the federal government will not recognize in the many programs a same-sex marriage that is recognized by the state. in terms of estate tax and benefits, some 1,000 programs. if a couple is legally married in the eyes of its is state, it is not married in the eyes of the federal government. that is a new policy for the federal government. prop 8 only speaks to california and bans same-sex marriage in california. >> scott: vik, they are different, but intersect. we will learn about what the justices feel about doma on tuesday when they ask quest
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
, a case on the constitutionality of the federal defense of marriage act, or doma. you can listen to those arguments on tuesday and wednesday evening at 8 p.m. on c-span. >> we could take pictures of the brain with mri scans and see the whole thing. there is an enormous gap in between of how the circus in the brain functions in order to be able to move my hands or look at you and process that information or to lay down in memory. we do not know how that works. with technologies yet to be invented, a lot of this of the technology developed. a lot of this will be nanotechnology. we will be able to record from a be hed
. wednesday's case is a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal. after first defending the law, the obama administration switched sides and now says it's unconstitutional. both these cases come to the court in a political climate that's very different from what it was just four years ago when prop 8 was passed. janelle, raj. >> thanks, pete. >>> a bay area boy is now getting worldwide attention after preparing his own argument in favor of same-sex marriage and then sending it to the nation's highest court. 12-year-old daniel sent a letter to supreme court chief justice john roberts about next week's case. even though daniel and his sister have two dads, daniel feels he has a lot in common with the chief justice, who has two adopted children of his own. before mailing his letter to roberts, daniel read it on youtube with hopes of reaching all the justices. >> you and i both know that family goes deeper than blood. i was lucky to be adopted by two guys i can both call dad. >> it's nev
. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage
a man and woman. en wednesday a case on the constitutionality on doma. you can listen to these on tuesday and wednesday evening at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> to believe in something that is so right, so dear, so necessary, you have to get in trouble. before we got in trouble, we studied. we didn't wake up one morning and say we're going to go is it in. we didn't just dream we're going to come to washington to washington and go on a freedom rite or we were going to march. we studied. we prepared ourselves. >> they say black power. they intimidated so many people, white people in particular by using that phrase black power. because when they use that word plaque power it made many people think black power meant destruction, blowing up the statute of liberty or ground zero, stroig america. it wasn't about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america. t was about having a new paradigm how we could be as we were doing the pledge in school the land of the free, the home of the brave. >> john lewis and john carlos discuss their personal experiences during the civil rig
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)